Devarim 15:7,8 (Re'eh) - The idea of charity in the Torah

Rambam (Laws of gifts to the poor, 7:1) writes, “It is a positive commandment to give charity to the poor according to what the poor requires…as it says, “You shall open your hand to him, Devarim 15:8, and “When your brother sinks down and his hand falters beside you, than shall you strengthen him as a sojourner and resident-settler, and he is to live beside you… your brother shall live beside you, Vayikra 25:35,36. Whoever sees a poor person and does not give charity violates a negative commandment as it says, “You are not to toughen your heart, you are not to shut your hand to your brother, the needy one, Devarim 15:7.” 

While all the verses quoted by Rambam clearly refer to helping the poor, it is striking that all the verses are referring to lending money to the poor and not to giving money outright as one normally thinks of charity. Rambam quoted Vayikra 25:35,36, but deleted the beginning of Vayikra 25:36 which records that one must not charge the poor interest. This warning shows that the case of helping the poor is a loan, and not an outright gift. Similarly, Devarim 15:7,8 record that one must give to the poor, but the end of 15:8 explains that the giving is through a loan. The following verse, Devarim 15:9, records that one should not think that because the seventh year is coming one will not give to the poor. The concern for the seventh year is only because a loan is annulled in the seventh year. This issue of annulling a loan is irrelevant if one gives a gift to the poor because one has no obligation to return a gift. Accordingly, 15:9 shows that the giving to the poor mentioned in 15:7,8,10 is a loan and that is why the advent of the seventh year is problematic for the giver/ lender since he expects to receive his money back from the poor and now he would not. 

All the verses quoted by the Rambam to support the obligation to give charity as a gift only refer to giving a loan to the poor and not an outright gift. To the best of my knowledge there is no verse in the Torah that requires one to give charity as a gift to the poor on a regular basis. There is an obligation to give to the poor during the festivals, Devarim 16:11,14, and there is an obligation to give ma’aser oni, Devarim 14:28,29, but that is only once every third year. Also, a freed slave receives a gift from his previous owner, 15:12-18 but that is a one time payment to the freed slave. Finally, there are laws that obligate one to let the poor work in the fields, shemitta, gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field, but all these cases are not gifts, since the poor is allowed the opportunity to work. 

The welfare obligation in the Torah is mainly a loan based charity system. This point might not only seem to contradict all standard assumptions about religious practice, but also would seem to make the Torah very callous towards the poor. How could it be that the Torah does not obligate one to give to the poor gifts on a regular basis? One is obligated to give loans to the poor, but why should the poor be under some obligation to return money they received? It is very possible that the poor will not be able to return the money since they need the money for consuming goods, and there is nothing to return. This is a legitimate question, but the loans are annulled every seven years, which means that the poor did not remain in debt forever. Thus, the annulling of the loans is a crucial part of a loan-based system of charity because this law makes the loan into a gift and removes the potentially crushing burden of debt. This is why, as argued above, the annulling of the loans had to be recorded in conjunction with the obligation to lend to the poor. Yet, if the annulling of the loans makes every loan into a gift, why have a loan in the first place, why not just obligate people to give gifts to the poor whenever the poor need money? 

The answer to this question is that while charity is considered a virtuous act, it has at least two negative results. One, charity lowers the dignity of the receiver, but a loan has the minimum amount of loss of dignity. (See Rambam’s eight levels of charity, Laws of gifts to the poor, 10:7-14.) The second problem is that receiving charity tends to induce people to stop trying to help themselves and they remain beneficiaries of further charity. This attitude means that a person will remain permanently poor and always in need of assistance.  Rambam recognizes this problem, as within the laws of charity he writes (Laws of gifts to the poor, 10:18) “A man should always exert himself and should sooner endure hardship than throw himself as a dependent upon the community. The Sages admonished, ‘Make your Sabbath a weekday, sooner than become dependent.” (Translation from Twersky, 1972). Yet, notwithstanding these moral statements, still the tendency remains for people to get too comfortable with receiving charity.

The loan based charity system might be an attempt to remove this problem. Even thought all loans eventually become annulled, when every loan is given, there is an obligation to pay back the money. Clearly if the person receiving the money is physically unable to work and pay back the money, then both parties know there is no way the money will be returned. However, if the receiver is able-bodied, then the obligation to return the money exists, and this obligation serves as a stimulus for the receiver to work to payback the loan. Thus, the Torah requires one to loan freely lend to the poor, but as the money is a loan and not a gift, then the goal is for the poor to use the money to get out of poverty and not to become life-long recipients. The above rationale for the loan based charity system can explain other laws in the Torah relating to charity. 

Why only on festivals and only once every third year by maaser oni is one obligated to give to the poor? Tigay (1996, p.144) writes that the food donated once every third year would “presumably suffice for the intervening years” and that ‘presumably certain public locations were designated for the deposit, distribution and long-term storage of the produce.” These assumptions are because he argues that “it is unlikely that the poor were to be fed only two years out of seven.” His assumptions that the food would suffice for so many years depends on the amount produced and donated versus the number of poor people and their needs. While certainly possible, this would seem to presume large quantities of food being donated. Yet, if it is correct, then the poor should have had no need for food during the shemitta year, which was one of the intervening years, but we know that the during the shemitta year the poor were allowed to work the fields, Shemot 23:11. It seems more likely that the food for the poor would suffice for a short period of time at best, and then one must explain why the poor were only given food once every three years? 

The answer is that the Torah does not want the poor to expect gifts on a regular basis, and thus these obligations are limited. When they are given, they serve as a merciful break to the poor, but as they are limited, the poor know they have to work as they cannot come to depend on these gifts on a regular basis. Similarly, the gifts to the freed slave are one-time gifts to help the slave start again, but since it is one time payment, as the slave cannot depend on more money. Finally, the laws that allow people to work in the fields do not encourage dependency since the people have to work to get their food. 

For a more complete discussion of these issues, see my article, Of biblical interest, brotherhood and charity, International Journal of Social Economics, 2003, vol. 30 pp. 788-797.